Don’t Give Obama What He Wants!

I’m just so damn mad right now I can barely contain my rage following Obama’s pathetic press conference—complete with children deployed as “human shields.” But I realize that is just what Obama wants. He is trying to provoke something. He is attacking the very foundations of our Republic—namely, the First and Second Amendments. And it is in your face, too.

In psychology, when one is trying to determine why a person is using threats, intimidation, violence, and the like, the question becomes, “What are they gaining from their bad behavior?” You have to determine what they want, and then don’t give it to them!

Obama’s use of Saul Alinsky power tactics is all designed to invoke strong reactions from his opponents, or “enemies.” He wants people to lose it … to do something stupid so he can put his “new man” jackboot down and squash it. And it will all be under the guise of trying to protect the “general welfare”—create the chaos, then provide the solution.

Years ago, I participated in a WWII reenactment group. The main reason I joined was for the opportunity to be able to participate in routine live fire exercises that were conducted by qualified members in the group, some of who were in the military and law enforcement. It was a great opportunity to get a little training on some large caliber, fully-automatic weaponry. I just had to supply the ammo. All of this was cleared with local law enforcement and was completely legal because the owners of the automatic weapons were fully licensed (FFL). As a matter of fact, sometimes local police officers would come and watch all the fun. It was a blast! Literally! (Sorry for the pun.)

I just read an article that seemed to express a certain amount of incredulity that so-called Rambo-style weapons are legally for sale in Stafford, Texas. Well, properly licensed gun dealers can sell “restricted” or Class 3 weapons, and do so all over the country. Most people who purchase Class 3 weapons are collectors who must themselves be properly licensed to purchase “restricted” weapons. In other words, it is well-regulated. Buried deep in the article is this rather interesting quote: “Despite the discomfort some might have over private citizens owning guns that were made for soldiers, law enforcement authorities say they can’t point to a specific instance in which a legally registered machine gun was used by a private citizen to commit a violent crime.” Judge Jeanine Pirro stated on her Fox News show that in her 30 years of law enforcement experience she could only recall one instance of a legally registered gun being used in the commission of a murder.

Anybody who regularly reads this blog knows that I’ve been up in arms over this onslaught by the democrats and Obama on the Second Amendment. They just don’t seem to get the “shall not be infringed” part. As a result, I’ve read a lot more about what the Founders’ truly intended by including the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

Firstly, the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, nor did it cover which type of arms a citizen was permitted to own. So any argument by the left stating that the Founders’ didn’t intend for citizens to own so-called “assault weapons,” and were only referring to muskets, is foolish on its face. The fact of the matter is the musket was the “assault weapon” of that time. It was state-of-the-art, just like an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle is state-of-the-art today. (By the way, the civilian model AR-15 rifle is not an “assault rifle,” even though it may look like one.)

If one researches the history of “gun control” legislation in the U.S., it should become readily apparent that a handful of anti-gun zealots—all democrats—have been on a warpath to progressively chip away at the rights of Americans to bear arms. Since the introduction of the Gun Control Act (H.R. 17735) in 1968, crafted by Congressman Emanuel Celler and Chris Dodd’s father Thomas Dodd, a steady barrage of House and Senate resolutions have been passed curtailing gun rights.

A torrent of anti-gun rights’ legislation has flowed forth from the likes of Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Congressman Chuck Schumer for years now. It was the likes of Schumer and Feinstein who ostensibly introduced the term “assault weapons” into the American lexicon via the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Since that time, we have seen the creation of “Gun-Free Zones,” the restriction on magazine capacity, and even the attempt to introduce legislation to limit domestic handguns for “sport use” only.

I’ve had enough! Repeal all this crap! None of it has done anything to reduce gun-related crimes. Which is really strange, if you think about it. If all this “gun control” nonsense has done nothing to reduce violence, then why are Obama and the Democrats so zealous in pushing it? Perhaps, they have another agenda other than the safety of the little children? All school mass shootings have occurred in gun-free zones since the early 1990′s. Why is Obama supporting legislation that would endanger children?

And how is it that a gun-free zone is not an infringement on our Second Amendment rights in the first place? We either have the right to bear arms or we don’t. Which is it?

Related:

About Brent P.

Editor-in-Chief at TheRightPlanet.com, writer, tech editor, software engineer, web developer, graphic design, anti-Marxist, pro-American guitar shredding Glock owner.
This entry was posted in American Culture, American Patriotism, American Sovereignty, Communications, Communism, Conservatism, Crime, Cultural Marxism, elitism, Fascism, Fast and Furious, First Amendment, Founders, GOP, House of Representatives, Indoctrination, Legal/Judicial, Main-Stream Media, Marxism, National Defense, National Security, Obama Lies, Plantation Liberalism, Politics, Prejudice, Presidential Campaign, Progressive Movement, Second Amendment, Self Defense, Senate, Social Engineering, Social Justice, Socialism, Tea Party, Terrorism, Totalitarianism, U.S. Constitution, United Nations and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.